EARLY-DAY MOTION 213 (Hansard, 6 February 1979)

§ Mr. Adley
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about an amendment to early-day motion 213 that has appeared on the Order Paper today in the name of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett). I have given the hon. Member notice that I intended to raise this matter as a point of order.
Early-day motion 213 stands on the Order Paper in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends. The hon. Member has put down an amendment which goes far beyond the normal wording that we expect in this House in political debate. It is little less than an accusation of untruthfulness. The wording used by the hon. Member is: but noting that this has not happened". That clearly indicates to me that the matters of fact which are included in the motion are considered by the hon. Member to be a figment of my imagination. He does not state what the word "this" refers to—whether it is the fact that the people concerned stayed at work, the fact that there was national ballot, the fact that there was a vote of 59 to 6, or the fact that the people concerned had their photographs taken.
I submit that the hon. Member's amendment, couched in these terms, is an abuse of the Order Paper and as such is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. This allegation of dishonesty refers not just to me but to the other Members of the Conservative Party and the one Liberal Member who have signed the motion. As evidence of the veracity of the content of the motion, I have here a letter sent by the mother of the chapel—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The House takes the hon. Member's word about the veracity of his statement, but it is an old-established cutom that in this House we have from time to time different facts in motions on the Order Paper. As a result, we get amendments to leave out certain words and substitute the opposite. That is a common experience. If I were to rule that these words were unparliamentary, I fear that I would be affecting the whole procedure of our early-day motions and the amendments to them. I would also be affecting the 221 ordinary processes of debate. I am sorry that I cannot help the hon. Member any further.

§ Mr. Corbett
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make clear that I intended only to be of service to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) in correcting a factual error?

§ Mr. Rost
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you stated that it is quite usual for early-day motions to be amended by reversing the whole sense of them, and by deleting virtually the whole motion and putting another in its place, surely that is done only when the motion is a statement of opinion. It is not done when the motion represents a statement of fact. Will you reconsider the comments that you made, in the light of that suggestion?

§ Mr. Speaker
Of course, I am quite prepared at any time to look at points that hon. Members raise if they feel that they have a sense of grievance. But I do not want to mislead the hon. Member. I believe that there is nothing that I can do on grounds of order.

§ Mr. Adley
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We object to the use of the words but noting that this has not happened. When one is dealing with matters of specific fact and events which have been well documented, it is a very different matter from dealing with political arguments. Would you look at this again and see whether there is a borderline which is sometimes crossed?

§ Mr. Speaker
Of course, I shall look at anything that any hon. Member asks me to examine, but we regularly have amendments that contradict outright the facts in the proposition. However, I will look at it again.

§ Mr. Corbett
If, in looking at the point that the hon. Member has raised, you feel that I can be of any assistance, please feel free to call on me, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that the hon. Member need not hang around the premises on that basis.